Daily Archives: March 19, 2014
Some questions for those priests or deacons or canonists that might be so kind as to answer me.
1. Can a bishop give a blanket ban on “blogging” in his diocese? For example, by stating “blogging tends to inevitably become judgmental and divisive, and fosters divisions; therefore, I command that no priest or deacon of this diocese run a blog”.
2. Can this “blanket”, “preventative” ban be extended to other social activities; like, say: Twitter, Facebook, or taking part to discussion fora?
3. If a Bishop does not like an already existing blog of a cleric, can he order the priest or deacon to shut it down, or even to delete the entire content as, say, “Proto-Lefebvrian”?
4. If a Bishop is allowed to shut down or forbid clerics from such activity because they “spend” in some way the name of the diocese, can he forbid that they take part to these activities anonymously, either as, say, “Dealbabor ;)”, or in a generic way, like “TraddyPriest”, but with no link to the Diocese? I know the one or other might blog anonymously anyway; but I am asking whether this would be in violation of their duty of obedience to the Bishop in a matter in which the bishop has a legitimate right to expect obedience, or not.
If any person in possession of detailed knowledge in the matter can give me such information, I would be very grateful. Desires for anonymity or non publication of the information provided will obviously be respected.
Once we have the canonical situation clearer, we will be able to better gauge the danger for the blogging activity of clerics in general; which, I am sure, does not worry only myself but many of my readers, too.
Many thanks in advance.
Some words in addition to the linked post.
1. for those who still have not understood it, this is my living room on the Internet. I would not allow you in my living room to speak out against me. By all means, it’s a free country, shout it to the entire planet. But I won’t give you my living room to do it, or the time of day to care of what you say.
2. As I want to have as much control as I can about the content – and there are people who are very subtle in trying to smuggle content I don’t like in their messages through links – please consider that in principle every external source you mention is, to me, part of your message. If the message links to a 30 minutes video, you have written a message that requires me 30 minutes to be read. The probable consequence of this you have already imagined.
3. “But Mundabor, why there should not be a measure of debate?” Because whilst you would find I am a rather good debater – and if you followed me on “Homo Smoke” you know what I am saying – I am very skeptical about debates being so useful. I prefer to use my time to present the Truth, not to have Truth dialogue with Error; and even when the disagreements are of far littler import, I do not think I should waste the time away to debate things of lesser importance. This is why I actually run a blog instead of a Forum. This blog was born without a comment option. I believe in God, the Father Almighty. Not in debate.
4. It never ceases to amaze me how subtle some people are in sneaking into this space with initially Catholic arguments, and then appear to have an entirely different agenda – generally of the judeo-masonic-CIA-conspiracy type, but not only – which slowly emerges from their message until it becomes open. It lets me think the different agenda was the purpose from day one. These people are banned. I have only “unbanned” one person up to now. I am one in the Darcy mould: my good opinion, once lost, is (very probably) lost forever. If you don’t care about that, just imagine how much I care that you don’t.
5. Moderation is becoming really time-consuming. There are days with more than 40 messages in my inbox. It requires a rather Mussolinian attitude to them if I am to also do what this blog was born for: put my content in it. Thanks to those who keep it short and to the point.
6. Feel free to add links if you think they can be useful, but please do not be offended if I have to cut the entire message because I have no time to check the link. I do not edit messages as not only it takes time, but I am unsure about the legal implications of this. I decide on a case by case basis. Please do not be offended.
Or else feel free to be offended, but then please also be coherent and do not comment – or visit – anymore.
Sad, but truthful article about the pitfalls of political correctness.
A Trannie (that is: a faggot who wants you to believe he is a dyke; or such like; I always get so confused…) is now suing CrossFit, a fitness organisation which organises its own CrossFit Games. In her modesty, she would be happy with $2.5m.
The reason for Mr (note) Jonsson to become rich is that he had a “gender reassignment” some years ago, but the organisation does not want to allow him to compete among the women.
In case you are thinking this is an April joke, no. It’s simply California.
My spontaneous thoughts on the matter:
1. If CrossFit is the “gender equality” organisation, as they might well be, I sincerely hope that they lose the suit, or have to pay the Trannie a lot of money. It is only fitting that the owners pay the price of their own stupidity, through their own stupidity. Contrappasso is how Dante would call it.
2. Similarly, I hope this changes the sport landscape in the USA and the entire world, and leads to new regulations by which Trannies are allowed to participate in women’s competition everywhere, from athletics to swimming to soccer. They would, ceteris paribus, easily outperform the women by way of their being … men. You would have women ousted by an awful lot of medals in favour of a small army of well-trained… men.
The liberal word would have to applaud. The women would have to shut up. They can’t say “but … biologically.. she… she… is a man!”, can they now?
Hey: the man was officially given the legal status of a woman by the stupid laws of the Socialist Republic of California. Why would he now have to be “discriminated” by the oh so inclusive society which allowed him to mutilate himself and undergo horrible chemical or hormonal treatments, and pledged to see him as a woman? How is it that reality can only be ignored when it just allows a couple of people to feel smug with themselves, but does not apply anymore when, say, other women pay the price for it?
Some people are trannies, my dear liberal female athletes. Get over it. Let’s make a huge PC exercise out of it, through Olympics and Paralypics, cycling, football (soccer), absolutely everything! You made this bed, now lie in it.
I hope the “struggle” for equality of the FDTAAP* crowd goes to its very end. I dream of a Wimbledon “female” tennis final between two trannies. Now that would be “inclusiveness”…
Live by political correctness, die by political correctness.
*Faggots, Dykes, Trannies and Assorted Perverts
What follows is the complete text of a letter written by Father Brian W. Harrison, O.S. from St. Louis, Missouri.
The letter appeared on Catholic Family News’ blog. Emphases in bold. Comments in red.
Dear Dr. Moynihan,
In your latest Letter from Rome, commenting on the new appointments to the College of Cardinals, you report rather nonchalantly that “[Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig] Müller is also known for having said that the Church’s position on admitting to divorced and remarried Catholics to the sacrament of Communion is not something that can or will be changed. But other German Church leaders, including Cardinal Walter Kasper, have recently gone on record saying the teaching may and will be changed.”
Your brief, matter-of-fact report on this controversy reminds me of the tip of an iceberg. It alludes to, but does not reveal the immensity of, a massive, looming threat that bids fair to pierce, penetrate and rend in twain Peter’s barque – already tossing perilously amid stormy and icy seas. The shocking magnitude of the doctrinal and pastoral crisis lurking beneath this politely-worded dispute between scholarly German prelates can scarcely be overstated. For what is at stake here is fidelity to a teaching of Jesus Christ that directly and profoundly affects the lives of hundreds of millions of Catholics: the indissolubility of marriage.
The German bishops have devised a pastoral plan to admit divorced and remarried Catholics to Communion, whether or not a Church tribunal has granted a decree of nullity of their first marriage. Cardinal-elect Müller, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has not only published a strong article in L’Osservatore Romano reaffirming the perennial Catholic doctrine confirmed by John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio; he has also written officially to the German Bishops’ Conference telling them to rectify their heterodox pastoral plan. But the bishops, led by their conference president and by Cardinal Kasper, are openly defying the head of the CDF, and predicting that the existing doctrine and discipline will soon be changed!
[We see a standard German pattern here: first the abuse, then the retroactive approval of what is now a fait accompli. The German bishop will get into the Synod in a state of de facto revolt, practised by hundreds of priests already, wished by many more, and demanding that the new situation be recognised. Ways to safe the Vatican’s doctrinal face will be found in spades. They’re not interested in that].
Think of the appalling ramifications of this. If German Catholics don’t need decrees of nullity, neither will any Catholics anywhere. Won’t the world’s Catholic marriage tribunals then become basically irrelevant? (Will they eventually just close down?) And won’t this reversal of bimillennial Catholic doctrine mean that the Protestants and Orthodox, who have allowed divorce and remarriage for century after century, have been more docile to the Holy Spirit on this issue than the true Church of Christ? Indeed, how credible, now, will be her claim to be the true Church? On what other controverted issues, perhaps, has the Catholic Church been wrong, and the separated brethren right?
[The way I have seen it, many German bishops are interested in downplaying any difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. They would, in fact, read the statement above with pleasure, and draw the conclusion that both the Catholic and the Protestant side have made their mistakes, no side was ever fully wrong or fully right, etc. ]
And what of Jesus’ teaching that those who remarry after divorce commit adultery? Admitting them to Communion without a commitment to continence will lead logically to one of three faith-breaking conclusions: (a) our Lord was mistaken in calling this relationship adulterous – in which case he can scarcely have been the Son of God; (b) adultery is not intrinsically and gravely sinful – in which case the Church’s universal and ordinary magisterium has always been wrong; or (c) Communion can be given to some who are living in objectively grave sin – in which case not only has the magisterium also erred monumentally by always teaching the opposite, but the way will also be opened to Communion for fornicators, practicing homosexuals, pederasts, and who knows who else? (And, please, spare us the sophistry that Jesus’ teaching was correct “in his own historical and cultural context”, but that since about Martin Luther’s time that has all changed.)
[Our brave Mini-me Luthers will adjust this in a way that appeases their easily persuaded sheep: a) we are merely being pastoral, so yes, in a way you are, oh well, quasi, so to speak, if we are truly literal, sinning; but come on, life has changed so much; everyone knows there was no Internet in Jesus’ times…. b) Adultery is sinful, I am just being pastoral. Now, take your communion… c) the Holy Spirit is guiding us to the new Time of Mercy; Francis has said so much, nicht wahr?].
Let us make no mistake: Satan is right now shaking the Church to her very foundations over this divorce issue. If anything, the confusion is becoming even graver than that over contraception between 1965 and 1968, when Paul VI’s seeming vacillation allowed Catholics round the world to anticipate a reversal of perennial Church teaching. If the present Successor of Peter now keeps silent about divorce and remarriage, thereby tacitly telling the Church and the world that the teaching of Jesus Christ will be up for open debate at a forthcoming Synod of Bishops, one fears a terrible price will soon have to be paid.
[Yes, Satan is shaking the Church. This is not the smoke of Satan anymore. This is an entire barbecue party.
I always wondered how Paul VI is nowadays considered a courageous Pope for daring to state the obvious, once in 15 years of Pontificate. And then remaining so shocked at the effect caused by obvious statement, that he never wrote other encyclicals for the remaining eleven years of his pontificate. I am glad someone, and a priest at that, gives a better picture of the matter].
Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S.
St. Louis, Missouri
Three Hail Mary for this brave priest are in order, surely?
“Giovanni Paolo II non chiedeva applausi, né si è mai guardato intorno preoccupato di come le sue decisioni sarebbero state accolte. Egli ha agito a partire dalla sua fede e dalle sue convinzioni ed era pronto anche a subire dei colpi. Il coraggio della verità è ai miei occhi un criterio di prim’ordine della santità”
“John Paul II did not ask for applause, nor did he ever look around worried about how his decisions would be received. He acted from the starting point of his faith and convictions, and he was also ready to take blows. The courage of truth is to my eyes a very important criterium of holiness.” (translation and emphasis mine).
Shockingly uncharitable, this criticism.
How does he dare…
I am appalled.